Cardiac resynchronization therapy with multipoint pacing via quadripolar lead versus traditional biventricular pacing: a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical studies on hemodynamic, clinical and prognostic parameters

BACKGROUND: Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is one of the cornerstones of heart failure (HF) therapy, as it has reduced mortality and morbidity and has shown improvement in functional capacity. Multipoint pacing (MPP) is a way of configuring CRT with the aim to improve the percentage of patients who respond to CRT. OBJECTIVE: To demonstrate the effectiveness of the MPP compared to traditional biventricular pacing (BiV). METHODS: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis according to PRISMA guidelines of studies in which MPP vs BiV strategy were compared. RESULTS: MPP use is associated with a higher rate of patients experiencing functional improvement (odds ratio: 2.51, 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.56–4.06; P = .0002) and with higher delta LV dP/dt(max) (mean difference, 1.82; 95% CI, 0.24–3.39; P = .0240) with respect to BiV. MPP and BiV have no significantly different effect on left ventricular end-systolic volume (LVESV) (mean difference, 0.39; 95% CI, -11.12 to 11.89; P = .9475); moreover, there is no significant difference between the 2 treatments regarding hospitalization for HF (odds ratio, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.32 to 1.54; P = .3816) and all-cause death (odds ratio, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.40 to 1.62; P = .5460). MPP is associated with a significantly lower projected battery longevity (mean difference -8.66 months; 95% CI, -13.67 to -3.66; P = .00007) with respect to BiV. CONCLUSION: MPP significantly improves functional class and acute hemodynamic parameters with respect to BiV. Prognostic indices and LVESV are not significantly influenced by MPP. MPP is associated with a significant reduction in projected battery longevity

Selection of the optimal candidate to mitraclip for secondary mitral regurgitation : Beyond mitral valve morphology

Secondary mitral regurgitation (MR) occurs despite structurally normal valve apparatus due to an underlying disease of the myocardium leading to disruption of the balance between tethering and closing forces with ensuing failure of leaflet coaptation. In patients with heart failure (HF) and left ventricular dysfunction, secondary MR is independently associated with poor outcome, yet prognostic benefits related to the correction of MR have remained elusive. Surgery is not recommended for the correction of secondary MR outside coronary artery bypass grafting. Percutaneous mitral valve repair (PMVR) with MitraClip implantation has recently evolved as a new transcatheter treatment option of inoperable or high-risk patients with severe MR, with promising results supporting the extension of guideline recommendations. MitraClip is highly effective in reducing secondary MR in HF patients. However, the derived clinical benefit is still controversial as two randomized trials directly comparing PMVR vs. optimal medical therapy in severe secondary MR yielded virtually opposite conclusions. We reviewed current evidence to identify predictors of PMVR-related outcomes in secondary MR useful to improve the timing and the selection of patients who would derive maximal benefit from MitraClip intervention. Beyond mitral valve anatomy, optimal candidate selection should rely on a comprehensive diagnostic workup and a fine-tuned risk stratification process aimed at (i) recognizing the substantial heterogeneity of secondary MR and its complex interaction with the myocardium, (ii) foreseeing hemodynamic consequences of PMVR, (iii) anticipating futility and (iv) improving symptoms, quality of life and overall survival